## Facts

- Anaconda Operations Pty Ltd (Anaconda) engaged Fluor Australia Pty Ltd (Fluor) under an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contract to design and build facilities for a nickel and cobalt mine, including an extraction plant, refinery, utilities, and related infrastructure.
- The contract contained an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be resolved by arbitration rather than litigation.
- After construction and commissioning activities, a dispute developed about whether the facility could achieve the performance and other requirements set out in the contract specifications.
- Anaconda asserted very large claims against Fluor, publicly reported as exceeding $1 billion overall.
- Fluor denied liability and advanced substantial counterclaims, including claims related to payment and security under the contract (as described in public summaries of the arbitration).
- An arbitral tribunal was appointed under the parties’ arbitration agreement to determine the dispute.
- The parties and tribunal faced a technically detailed record and a proceeding that risked a long hearing if all questions were tried at once.
- The arbitration was therefore organized in stages so that selected issues could be heard and determined first, with an interim (partial) award issued before any later phase addressing remaining matters.
- Public company disclosures concerning the interim award report that the tribunal determined significant parts of Anaconda’s claims and Fluor’s counterclaims in the first phase, leaving other items for later determination.

## Issues

1. Did the tribunal have authority, in a large EPC arbitration, to determine the dispute in stages and issue an interim (partial) award deciding selected issues before the remaining issues?
2. Was Fluor liable for breach of the EPC contract because the facility did not meet the contractual performance and specification requirements alleged by Anaconda?
3. To what extent, if any, could Anaconda recover damages on a statutory misleading or deceptive conduct theory connected to alleged project representations (as publicly characterized in reports of the arbitration)?
4. Were Fluor’s counterclaims for amounts said to be due under the contract (including security and payment-related claims) established so as to reduce or offset any recovery by Anaconda?

## Decision

- The arbitration proceeded in phases, and the tribunal issued an interim award determining a first set of major claims and counterclaims.
- As publicly reported, the interim award allowed Anaconda A$147.6 million on parts of its claims.
- As publicly reported, the interim award allowed Fluor A$107.8 million on its counterclaims.
- As publicly reported, the net result of the interim award required Fluor to pay Anaconda about A$39.8 million.
- As publicly reported, Anaconda recovered only A$5 million on its misleading or deceptive conduct (trade practices) claim, despite having advanced a much larger amount under that theory.
- The interim award did not dispose of all disputes between the parties; remaining issues were left for later determination in the arbitration.

## Legal Principles

- An arbitral tribunal may, consistent with the parties’ arbitration agreement and applicable arbitration law, structure a large construction dispute in stages and issue an interim (partial) award that finally determines the matters decided in that stage.
- In EPC performance disputes, liability and quantum commonly depend on close analysis of contractual specifications, proof of nonconformance, and a supported causal link between any defect and the losses claimed.
- Very large misleading or deceptive conduct claims require proof of the impugned conduct, reliance/causation, and a defensible quantification of loss; where proof falls short, recovery may be limited even if other contractual claims succeed.
- Counterclaims concerning payment rights and project security can materially reduce an owner’s recovery, because they may operate as set-off against damages awarded for defects or delay.

## Conclusion

In *Anaconda Operations Pty Limited v. Fluor Australia Pty Limited, Interim Award (2001)*, a dispute arising from an EPC contract for a nickel/cobalt processing facility was referred to arbitration and managed in phases due to the size and technical content of the claims; in the interim award, public reports state that both sides obtained substantial monetary awards—A$147.6 million for Anaconda and A$107.8 million for Fluor—producing a net payment to Anaconda of about A$39.8 million, with only a small amount (A$5 million) awarded on Anaconda’s misleading or deceptive conduct theory and other matters left for later resolution.
